<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_20_0054218</id>
	<title>"Limited Edition" SSD Has Fastest Storage Speed</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266672000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Vigile writes <i>"The idea of having a 'Limited Edition' solid state drive might seem counter-intuitive, but regardless of the naming, <a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=874">the new OCZ Vertex LE</a> is based on the new Sandforce SSD controller that promises significant increases in performance, along with improved ability to detect and correct errors in the data stored in flash. While the initial Sandforce drive was called the 'Vertex 2 Pro' and included a super-capacitor for data integrity, the Vertex LE drops that feature to improve cost efficiency.  In PC Perspectives's performance tests, the drive was able to best the Intel X25-M line in file creation and copying duties, had minimal fragmentation or slow-down effects, and was very competitive in IOs per second as well.  It seems that current SSD manufacturers are all targeting Intel and the new Sandforce controller is likely the first to be up to the challenge."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vigile writes " The idea of having a 'Limited Edition ' solid state drive might seem counter-intuitive , but regardless of the naming , the new OCZ Vertex LE is based on the new Sandforce SSD controller that promises significant increases in performance , along with improved ability to detect and correct errors in the data stored in flash .
While the initial Sandforce drive was called the 'Vertex 2 Pro ' and included a super-capacitor for data integrity , the Vertex LE drops that feature to improve cost efficiency .
In PC Perspectives 's performance tests , the drive was able to best the Intel X25-M line in file creation and copying duties , had minimal fragmentation or slow-down effects , and was very competitive in IOs per second as well .
It seems that current SSD manufacturers are all targeting Intel and the new Sandforce controller is likely the first to be up to the challenge .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vigile writes "The idea of having a 'Limited Edition' solid state drive might seem counter-intuitive, but regardless of the naming, the new OCZ Vertex LE is based on the new Sandforce SSD controller that promises significant increases in performance, along with improved ability to detect and correct errors in the data stored in flash.
While the initial Sandforce drive was called the 'Vertex 2 Pro' and included a super-capacitor for data integrity, the Vertex LE drops that feature to improve cost efficiency.
In PC Perspectives's performance tests, the drive was able to best the Intel X25-M line in file creation and copying duties, had minimal fragmentation or slow-down effects, and was very competitive in IOs per second as well.
It seems that current SSD manufacturers are all targeting Intel and the new Sandforce controller is likely the first to be up to the challenge.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208442</id>
	<title>Your CO-mmand of the Englash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266697080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is pitiful, if you don't realise that "besting" someone or something, is a correct use of the word. Probably from Chivalric era.</p><p>Plus, I just Farted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... tweet tweet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is pitiful , if you do n't realise that " besting " someone or something , is a correct use of the word .
Probably from Chivalric era.Plus , I just Farted ... tweet tweet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is pitiful, if you don't realise that "besting" someone or something, is a correct use of the word.
Probably from Chivalric era.Plus, I just Farted ... tweet tweet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207438</id>
	<title>Re:How hard can it be?</title>
	<author>adisakp</author>
	<datestamp>1266596820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FWIW, the FusionIO product is not a simple drive replacement the way a SSD is.  It doesn't boot and requires drivers to operate, plus the "control logic" is not self-contained but rather part of the driver.  It uses your System CPU and system RAM to help handle bookkeeping rather than just the controller and cache on the drive itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , the FusionIO product is not a simple drive replacement the way a SSD is .
It does n't boot and requires drivers to operate , plus the " control logic " is not self-contained but rather part of the driver .
It uses your System CPU and system RAM to help handle bookkeeping rather than just the controller and cache on the drive itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, the FusionIO product is not a simple drive replacement the way a SSD is.
It doesn't boot and requires drivers to operate, plus the "control logic" is not self-contained but rather part of the driver.
It uses your System CPU and system RAM to help handle bookkeeping rather than just the controller and cache on the drive itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207378</id>
	<title>Removed super-cap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266596280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... You know that the cap is there so if you are saving something while the power goes out you don't corrupt the file right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... You know that the cap is there so if you are saving something while the power goes out you do n't corrupt the file right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... You know that the cap is there so if you are saving something while the power goes out you don't corrupt the file right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208118</id>
	<title>Don't we want raw access + NILFS?</title>
	<author>phess</author>
	<datestamp>1266605100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see why manufacturers prefer spending large amounts of time and money into producing smart controllers when they could just give us raw access to the device and let us use something as NILFS on top of it.

Do you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why manufacturers prefer spending large amounts of time and money into producing smart controllers when they could just give us raw access to the device and let us use something as NILFS on top of it .
Do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why manufacturers prefer spending large amounts of time and money into producing smart controllers when they could just give us raw access to the device and let us use something as NILFS on top of it.
Do you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208580</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading title</title>
	<author>pantherace</author>
	<datestamp>1266656820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to jumping on a new technology, you got burned, as everyone with the exception of Samsung and Intel drives of the time used the same Jmicron controller. OCZ actually went and designed some cache and paired controllers into their middle offering (I forget the name), and I believe switched to Samsung controllers and single layer flash for a time on the high end. (I don't know what their current offerings are)</p><p>Everyone else for the most part kept selling parts that used the same chip as the OCZ Value Series. Most makers, including OCZ released firmware updates. You likely got pretty much what you paid for at that time in the SSD race.</p><p>Any other product from that time, even including Intel and Samsung didn't deal with what you've got which is random writes to fragmented memory. The problem comes from it having to erase a block, then rewrite the block. That's likely several times your data's size. It would cause especially windows machines to freeze for a few seconds. Most Linux testers I saw, didn't have quite the same problem of complete lockup, due to differences in how Linux caches to memory and when it writes to disk, but still had issues with very limited IO on fragmented devices.</p><p>In fact: <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247280-32-slow-freeze-stuttering-vista-outlook-solved" title="tomshardware.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247280-32-slow-freeze-stuttering-vista-outlook-solved</a> [tomshardware.com]<br>So while it may suck for you, take a look at where the links point to.</p><p>Because of the fact that they were the only ones that seemed to be trying to seriously solve or work around problems, if I were to get a new SSD, I'd probably get an OCZ. Of course, jumping on new or old technologies, tends to cause problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to jumping on a new technology , you got burned , as everyone with the exception of Samsung and Intel drives of the time used the same Jmicron controller .
OCZ actually went and designed some cache and paired controllers into their middle offering ( I forget the name ) , and I believe switched to Samsung controllers and single layer flash for a time on the high end .
( I do n't know what their current offerings are ) Everyone else for the most part kept selling parts that used the same chip as the OCZ Value Series .
Most makers , including OCZ released firmware updates .
You likely got pretty much what you paid for at that time in the SSD race.Any other product from that time , even including Intel and Samsung did n't deal with what you 've got which is random writes to fragmented memory .
The problem comes from it having to erase a block , then rewrite the block .
That 's likely several times your data 's size .
It would cause especially windows machines to freeze for a few seconds .
Most Linux testers I saw , did n't have quite the same problem of complete lockup , due to differences in how Linux caches to memory and when it writes to disk , but still had issues with very limited IO on fragmented devices.In fact : http : //www.tomshardware.com/forum/247280-32-slow-freeze-stuttering-vista-outlook-solved [ tomshardware.com ] So while it may suck for you , take a look at where the links point to.Because of the fact that they were the only ones that seemed to be trying to seriously solve or work around problems , if I were to get a new SSD , I 'd probably get an OCZ .
Of course , jumping on new or old technologies , tends to cause problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to jumping on a new technology, you got burned, as everyone with the exception of Samsung and Intel drives of the time used the same Jmicron controller.
OCZ actually went and designed some cache and paired controllers into their middle offering (I forget the name), and I believe switched to Samsung controllers and single layer flash for a time on the high end.
(I don't know what their current offerings are)Everyone else for the most part kept selling parts that used the same chip as the OCZ Value Series.
Most makers, including OCZ released firmware updates.
You likely got pretty much what you paid for at that time in the SSD race.Any other product from that time, even including Intel and Samsung didn't deal with what you've got which is random writes to fragmented memory.
The problem comes from it having to erase a block, then rewrite the block.
That's likely several times your data's size.
It would cause especially windows machines to freeze for a few seconds.
Most Linux testers I saw, didn't have quite the same problem of complete lockup, due to differences in how Linux caches to memory and when it writes to disk, but still had issues with very limited IO on fragmented devices.In fact: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247280-32-slow-freeze-stuttering-vista-outlook-solved [tomshardware.com]So while it may suck for you, take a look at where the links point to.Because of the fact that they were the only ones that seemed to be trying to seriously solve or work around problems, if I were to get a new SSD, I'd probably get an OCZ.
Of course, jumping on new or old technologies, tends to cause problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206772</id>
	<title>Can you hack one in?</title>
	<author>leighklotz</author>
	<datestamp>1266589380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the cap left off the board so you can just put one in yourself or is it size-reduced as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the cap left off the board so you can just put one in yourself or is it size-reduced as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the cap left off the board so you can just put one in yourself or is it size-reduced as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207772</id>
	<title>Re:How hard can it be?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1266600360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We Lose Money On Each Unit, But Make It Up Through Volume"</p><p>Take a look at memory sticks and memory cards - they're just one of the dumbest chips possible wrapped in a few cents of plastic. Multiply it up to desired SSD size. It actually comes out to quite a bit in parts before you start trying to build an SSD out of it. Now I haven't looked at FusionIO's products in a while but their early products at least were basically banks of RAM with a battery powered backup. Neat, but didn't really help unless you could afford to buy tons and tons of RAM.</p><p>Just a quick check from a price guide here in Norway:<br>Memory sticks: 32GB/489 NOK = 15.28 NOK/GB<br>Memory card: 32GB/529 NOK = 16.53 NOK/GB<br>Kingston SSDNow V-Series 40GB: 40GB/693 NOK = 17.33 NOK/GB</p><p>I didn't include one of every SSD size but they pretty much scale linearly, a 256 GB SSDs still works out to about 17 NOK/GB for the cheapest. So they all work out to about the same, you pay a premium on top of that for faster/more intelligent stuff from Intel/OCZ etc. but the floor doesn't go down until the flash gets cheaper. And memory sticks and memory cards <b>are</b> sold at volume pricing already, which means SSDs are too despite being in low volume because they use much the same chips.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We Lose Money On Each Unit , But Make It Up Through Volume " Take a look at memory sticks and memory cards - they 're just one of the dumbest chips possible wrapped in a few cents of plastic .
Multiply it up to desired SSD size .
It actually comes out to quite a bit in parts before you start trying to build an SSD out of it .
Now I have n't looked at FusionIO 's products in a while but their early products at least were basically banks of RAM with a battery powered backup .
Neat , but did n't really help unless you could afford to buy tons and tons of RAM.Just a quick check from a price guide here in Norway : Memory sticks : 32GB/489 NOK = 15.28 NOK/GBMemory card : 32GB/529 NOK = 16.53 NOK/GBKingston SSDNow V-Series 40GB : 40GB/693 NOK = 17.33 NOK/GBI did n't include one of every SSD size but they pretty much scale linearly , a 256 GB SSDs still works out to about 17 NOK/GB for the cheapest .
So they all work out to about the same , you pay a premium on top of that for faster/more intelligent stuff from Intel/OCZ etc .
but the floor does n't go down until the flash gets cheaper .
And memory sticks and memory cards are sold at volume pricing already , which means SSDs are too despite being in low volume because they use much the same chips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We Lose Money On Each Unit, But Make It Up Through Volume"Take a look at memory sticks and memory cards - they're just one of the dumbest chips possible wrapped in a few cents of plastic.
Multiply it up to desired SSD size.
It actually comes out to quite a bit in parts before you start trying to build an SSD out of it.
Now I haven't looked at FusionIO's products in a while but their early products at least were basically banks of RAM with a battery powered backup.
Neat, but didn't really help unless you could afford to buy tons and tons of RAM.Just a quick check from a price guide here in Norway:Memory sticks: 32GB/489 NOK = 15.28 NOK/GBMemory card: 32GB/529 NOK = 16.53 NOK/GBKingston SSDNow V-Series 40GB: 40GB/693 NOK = 17.33 NOK/GBI didn't include one of every SSD size but they pretty much scale linearly, a 256 GB SSDs still works out to about 17 NOK/GB for the cheapest.
So they all work out to about the same, you pay a premium on top of that for faster/more intelligent stuff from Intel/OCZ etc.
but the floor doesn't go down until the flash gets cheaper.
And memory sticks and memory cards are sold at volume pricing already, which means SSDs are too despite being in low volume because they use much the same chips.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206866</id>
	<title>"to lower the cost"</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1266590400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"to improve cost efficiency"</i>

<br> <br>should be

<br> <br>"to lower the cost"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" to improve cost efficiency " should be " to lower the cost "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"to improve cost efficiency"

 should be

 "to lower the cost"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208234</id>
	<title>Anyone else...</title>
	<author>cyberjock1980</author>
	<datestamp>1266606780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else agree that SSD speeds are plenty fast for the tasks given to it?  When I shop for SSD drives I look for a reputable company that doesn't stutter like crazy with reads and writes for the lowest price.  I've owned Intel X25Ms as well as other brands and I can't tell the difference in performance.  Of course, the benchmarks do paint different numbers.</p><p>But who is REALLY gonna notice that 0.03ms difference in "seek time" for one SSD over another and 150MB/sec over 220MB/sec sequential?  SSDs these days are so fast I don't see a reason to "upgrade" to a faster SSD if I already have one.</p><p>What do I want to see improved on SSD?  Reliability and price.  This "Limited Edition" seems like a waste, and I'd bet that less than 1\% of users here at slashdot would really and truely notice this.  I'd bet most of us would be unable to tell the difference if tested blindly.</p><p>I'm sure this will hurt my karma, but I can't believe that I'm alone in thinking this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else agree that SSD speeds are plenty fast for the tasks given to it ?
When I shop for SSD drives I look for a reputable company that does n't stutter like crazy with reads and writes for the lowest price .
I 've owned Intel X25Ms as well as other brands and I ca n't tell the difference in performance .
Of course , the benchmarks do paint different numbers.But who is REALLY gon na notice that 0.03ms difference in " seek time " for one SSD over another and 150MB/sec over 220MB/sec sequential ?
SSDs these days are so fast I do n't see a reason to " upgrade " to a faster SSD if I already have one.What do I want to see improved on SSD ?
Reliability and price .
This " Limited Edition " seems like a waste , and I 'd bet that less than 1 \ % of users here at slashdot would really and truely notice this .
I 'd bet most of us would be unable to tell the difference if tested blindly.I 'm sure this will hurt my karma , but I ca n't believe that I 'm alone in thinking this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else agree that SSD speeds are plenty fast for the tasks given to it?
When I shop for SSD drives I look for a reputable company that doesn't stutter like crazy with reads and writes for the lowest price.
I've owned Intel X25Ms as well as other brands and I can't tell the difference in performance.
Of course, the benchmarks do paint different numbers.But who is REALLY gonna notice that 0.03ms difference in "seek time" for one SSD over another and 150MB/sec over 220MB/sec sequential?
SSDs these days are so fast I don't see a reason to "upgrade" to a faster SSD if I already have one.What do I want to see improved on SSD?
Reliability and price.
This "Limited Edition" seems like a waste, and I'd bet that less than 1\% of users here at slashdot would really and truely notice this.
I'd bet most of us would be unable to tell the difference if tested blindly.I'm sure this will hurt my karma, but I can't believe that I'm alone in thinking this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207334</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266595680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a usless article.... you won't even be able to buy this drive after a month or two.  What is this, an advertisement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a usless article.... you wo n't even be able to buy this drive after a month or two .
What is this , an advertisement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a usless article.... you won't even be able to buy this drive after a month or two.
What is this, an advertisement?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31209344</id>
	<title>Re:Don't we want raw access + NILFS?</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1266671880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I'd be using something like YAFFS (Yet Another Flash File System) rather than NILFS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd be using something like YAFFS ( Yet Another Flash File System ) rather than NILFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd be using something like YAFFS (Yet Another Flash File System) rather than NILFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207998</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266603240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, will never buy another OCZ product again.  I bought a "Solid Series" a little over a year ago when newegg reviews (about a dozen at the time) only had good things to say about them.  They were pretty fast in the beginning.</p><p>About half-a-year later, the thing started stuttering for seconds on end, much worse than any non-broken spinning disk I encountered.  It was a little over half full, that's it.  Turns out that they put in crappy controllers, I guess.  Not fully sure.  Now the company says they're not good at stand-a-lone performance, suddenly they called it a "value series", and that you should "upgrade" to a premium series for that, but they're still good for arrays and the like.</p><p>They certainly didn't assert or say that anywhere at the time of sale, it's just a belated excuse for shipping a crap product to people that paid good money.</p><p><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227373" title="newegg.com">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227373</a> [newegg.com]</p><p>They even go on the reviews to excuse for this.  But of course they don't lift a finger to fix the problem.  Stick with Intel or some reputable company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , will never buy another OCZ product again .
I bought a " Solid Series " a little over a year ago when newegg reviews ( about a dozen at the time ) only had good things to say about them .
They were pretty fast in the beginning.About half-a-year later , the thing started stuttering for seconds on end , much worse than any non-broken spinning disk I encountered .
It was a little over half full , that 's it .
Turns out that they put in crappy controllers , I guess .
Not fully sure .
Now the company says they 're not good at stand-a-lone performance , suddenly they called it a " value series " , and that you should " upgrade " to a premium series for that , but they 're still good for arrays and the like.They certainly did n't assert or say that anywhere at the time of sale , it 's just a belated excuse for shipping a crap product to people that paid good money.http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16820227373 [ newegg.com ] They even go on the reviews to excuse for this .
But of course they do n't lift a finger to fix the problem .
Stick with Intel or some reputable company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, will never buy another OCZ product again.
I bought a "Solid Series" a little over a year ago when newegg reviews (about a dozen at the time) only had good things to say about them.
They were pretty fast in the beginning.About half-a-year later, the thing started stuttering for seconds on end, much worse than any non-broken spinning disk I encountered.
It was a little over half full, that's it.
Turns out that they put in crappy controllers, I guess.
Not fully sure.
Now the company says they're not good at stand-a-lone performance, suddenly they called it a "value series", and that you should "upgrade" to a premium series for that, but they're still good for arrays and the like.They certainly didn't assert or say that anywhere at the time of sale, it's just a belated excuse for shipping a crap product to people that paid good money.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227373 [newegg.com]They even go on the reviews to excuse for this.
But of course they don't lift a finger to fix the problem.
Stick with Intel or some reputable company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206984</id>
	<title>Has Fastest Storage Speed = Is Fastest?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266591720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is "fastest storage speed" another way of saying that "fastest"? I ask because I've got a a fast drive, but I'm not sure whether its <i>speed</i> itself is fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is " fastest storage speed " another way of saying that " fastest " ?
I ask because I 've got a a fast drive , but I 'm not sure whether its speed itself is fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is "fastest storage speed" another way of saying that "fastest"?
I ask because I've got a a fast drive, but I'm not sure whether its speed itself is fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206864</id>
	<title>"improve cost efficiency" - press releases on /.</title>
	<author>seifried</author>
	<datestamp>1266590340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that new-speak for "cheaper"? I also love "the drive was able to best the Intel X25-M" this is one of the worst written pieces of commercial press release I have ever seen on Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that new-speak for " cheaper " ?
I also love " the drive was able to best the Intel X25-M " this is one of the worst written pieces of commercial press release I have ever seen on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that new-speak for "cheaper"?
I also love "the drive was able to best the Intel X25-M" this is one of the worst written pieces of commercial press release I have ever seen on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207708</id>
	<title>Not really impressed with OCZ</title>
	<author>m.dillon</author>
	<datestamp>1266599580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least not the Colossus I bought.  Write speeds are great but read speeds suck compared to the Intels.  The Colossus doesn't even have NCQ for some reason!  There's just one tag.  The Intels beat the hell out of it on reading because of that.  Sure, the 40G Intel's write speed isn't too hot but once you get to 80G and beyond it's just fine.</p><p>The problem with write speeds for MLC flash based drives is, well, its a bit oxymoronic.  With the limited durability you don't want to be writing at high sustained bandwidths anyway.  The SLC stuff is more suited to it though of course we're talking at least 2x the price per gigabyte for SLC.</p><p>--</p><p>We've just started using SSDs in DragonFly-land to cache filesystem data and meta-data, and to back tmpfs.  It's interesting how much of an effect the SSD has.  It only takes 6GB of SSD storage for every 14 million or so inodes to essentially cache ALL the meta-data in a filesystem, so even on 32-bit kernels with its 32-64G swap configuration limit the SSD effectively removes all overhead from find, ls, rdist, cvsup, git, and other directory traversals (64-bit kernels can do 512G-1TB or so of SSD swap).  So its in the bag for meta-data caching.</p><p>Data-caching is a bit more difficult to quantify but certainly any data set which actually fits in the SSD can push your web server to 100MB/s out the network with a single SSD (A single 40G Intel SSD can do 170-200MB/sec reading after all).  So a GigE interface basically can be saturated.  For the purposes of serving data out a network the SSD data-cache is almost like an extension of memory and allows considerably cheaper hardware to be used... no need for lots of spindles or big motherboards sporting 16-64G of ram.  The difficulty, of course, is when the active data-set doesn't fit into the SSD.</p><p>Even using it as general swap space for a workstation has visible benefits when it comes to juggling applications and medium-sized data sets (like e.g. videos or lots of pictures in RAW format), not to mention program text and data that would normally be throw away overnight or by other large programs.</p><p>Another interesting outcome of using the SSD as a cache instead of loading an actual filesystem on it is that it seems to be fairly unstressed when it comes to fragmentation.  The kernel pages data out in 64K-256K chunks and multiple chunks are often linear, so the SSD doesn't have to do much write combining at all.</p><p>In most of these use-cases read bandwidth is the overriding factor.  Write bandwidth is not.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least not the Colossus I bought .
Write speeds are great but read speeds suck compared to the Intels .
The Colossus does n't even have NCQ for some reason !
There 's just one tag .
The Intels beat the hell out of it on reading because of that .
Sure , the 40G Intel 's write speed is n't too hot but once you get to 80G and beyond it 's just fine.The problem with write speeds for MLC flash based drives is , well , its a bit oxymoronic .
With the limited durability you do n't want to be writing at high sustained bandwidths anyway .
The SLC stuff is more suited to it though of course we 're talking at least 2x the price per gigabyte for SLC.--We 've just started using SSDs in DragonFly-land to cache filesystem data and meta-data , and to back tmpfs .
It 's interesting how much of an effect the SSD has .
It only takes 6GB of SSD storage for every 14 million or so inodes to essentially cache ALL the meta-data in a filesystem , so even on 32-bit kernels with its 32-64G swap configuration limit the SSD effectively removes all overhead from find , ls , rdist , cvsup , git , and other directory traversals ( 64-bit kernels can do 512G-1TB or so of SSD swap ) .
So its in the bag for meta-data caching.Data-caching is a bit more difficult to quantify but certainly any data set which actually fits in the SSD can push your web server to 100MB/s out the network with a single SSD ( A single 40G Intel SSD can do 170-200MB/sec reading after all ) .
So a GigE interface basically can be saturated .
For the purposes of serving data out a network the SSD data-cache is almost like an extension of memory and allows considerably cheaper hardware to be used... no need for lots of spindles or big motherboards sporting 16-64G of ram .
The difficulty , of course , is when the active data-set does n't fit into the SSD.Even using it as general swap space for a workstation has visible benefits when it comes to juggling applications and medium-sized data sets ( like e.g .
videos or lots of pictures in RAW format ) , not to mention program text and data that would normally be throw away overnight or by other large programs.Another interesting outcome of using the SSD as a cache instead of loading an actual filesystem on it is that it seems to be fairly unstressed when it comes to fragmentation .
The kernel pages data out in 64K-256K chunks and multiple chunks are often linear , so the SSD does n't have to do much write combining at all.In most of these use-cases read bandwidth is the overriding factor .
Write bandwidth is not.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least not the Colossus I bought.
Write speeds are great but read speeds suck compared to the Intels.
The Colossus doesn't even have NCQ for some reason!
There's just one tag.
The Intels beat the hell out of it on reading because of that.
Sure, the 40G Intel's write speed isn't too hot but once you get to 80G and beyond it's just fine.The problem with write speeds for MLC flash based drives is, well, its a bit oxymoronic.
With the limited durability you don't want to be writing at high sustained bandwidths anyway.
The SLC stuff is more suited to it though of course we're talking at least 2x the price per gigabyte for SLC.--We've just started using SSDs in DragonFly-land to cache filesystem data and meta-data, and to back tmpfs.
It's interesting how much of an effect the SSD has.
It only takes 6GB of SSD storage for every 14 million or so inodes to essentially cache ALL the meta-data in a filesystem, so even on 32-bit kernels with its 32-64G swap configuration limit the SSD effectively removes all overhead from find, ls, rdist, cvsup, git, and other directory traversals (64-bit kernels can do 512G-1TB or so of SSD swap).
So its in the bag for meta-data caching.Data-caching is a bit more difficult to quantify but certainly any data set which actually fits in the SSD can push your web server to 100MB/s out the network with a single SSD (A single 40G Intel SSD can do 170-200MB/sec reading after all).
So a GigE interface basically can be saturated.
For the purposes of serving data out a network the SSD data-cache is almost like an extension of memory and allows considerably cheaper hardware to be used... no need for lots of spindles or big motherboards sporting 16-64G of ram.
The difficulty, of course, is when the active data-set doesn't fit into the SSD.Even using it as general swap space for a workstation has visible benefits when it comes to juggling applications and medium-sized data sets (like e.g.
videos or lots of pictures in RAW format), not to mention program text and data that would normally be throw away overnight or by other large programs.Another interesting outcome of using the SSD as a cache instead of loading an actual filesystem on it is that it seems to be fairly unstressed when it comes to fragmentation.
The kernel pages data out in 64K-256K chunks and multiple chunks are often linear, so the SSD doesn't have to do much write combining at all.In most of these use-cases read bandwidth is the overriding factor.
Write bandwidth is not.-Matt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208736</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading title</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1266659760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their Solid Series 2 is pretty good. Ridiculously cheap. It's reliably fast for read speeds, at least. But stay away from any of the older SSDs that had those horrible JMicron controllers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their Solid Series 2 is pretty good .
Ridiculously cheap .
It 's reliably fast for read speeds , at least .
But stay away from any of the older SSDs that had those horrible JMicron controllers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their Solid Series 2 is pretty good.
Ridiculously cheap.
It's reliably fast for read speeds, at least.
But stay away from any of the older SSDs that had those horrible JMicron controllers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206946</id>
	<title>Re:Marketspeak, or as normal people call it: lies.</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1266591360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just like LCDs getting their amazing thinness by having individual pixels instead of scanning an electron beam across a vacuum tube.
<br> <br>
Disgusting!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just like LCDs getting their amazing thinness by having individual pixels instead of scanning an electron beam across a vacuum tube .
Disgusting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just like LCDs getting their amazing thinness by having individual pixels instead of scanning an electron beam across a vacuum tube.
Disgusting!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206782</id>
	<title>Marketspeak, or as normal people call it: lies.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266589500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No fragmentation? What about the fact that SSDs get their blazing fast speed from fragmenting everything they write across the nodes?</p><p>Another<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.versiment of little value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No fragmentation ?
What about the fact that SSDs get their blazing fast speed from fragmenting everything they write across the nodes ? Another /.versiment of little value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No fragmentation?
What about the fact that SSDs get their blazing fast speed from fragmenting everything they write across the nodes?Another /.versiment of little value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208932</id>
	<title>Re:Don't we want raw access + NILFS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266663720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would prefer raw access to MILFS</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would prefer raw access to MILFS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would prefer raw access to MILFS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31210080</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else...</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1266682140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By and large, for ordinary user space apps and workloads you are certainly right. But even some home users do intense things, such as video encoding or 3 rendering that, because of high intensity I/O that can be associated with that, will certainly benefit from faster disk. Now, if one hasn't already upgraded to SSD, I'll say this: one is missing out on the best upgrade you can do for your daily experience of your computer, barring a really nice monitor.</p><p>C//</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By and large , for ordinary user space apps and workloads you are certainly right .
But even some home users do intense things , such as video encoding or 3 rendering that , because of high intensity I/O that can be associated with that , will certainly benefit from faster disk .
Now , if one has n't already upgraded to SSD , I 'll say this : one is missing out on the best upgrade you can do for your daily experience of your computer , barring a really nice monitor.C//</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By and large, for ordinary user space apps and workloads you are certainly right.
But even some home users do intense things, such as video encoding or 3 rendering that, because of high intensity I/O that can be associated with that, will certainly benefit from faster disk.
Now, if one hasn't already upgraded to SSD, I'll say this: one is missing out on the best upgrade you can do for your daily experience of your computer, barring a really nice monitor.C//</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31216464</id>
	<title>Photoshop on a Monochrome Mac?</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1266691920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Photoshop 1.0 actually ran on a B&amp;W Mac? Seriously? What's the point in that?</p><p>Although, if anyone know where I can find a copy of this for my Mac Plus, let me know...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshop 1.0 actually ran on a B&amp;W Mac ?
Seriously ? What 's the point in that ? Although , if anyone know where I can find a copy of this for my Mac Plus , let me know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshop 1.0 actually ran on a B&amp;W Mac?
Seriously? What's the point in that?Although, if anyone know where I can find a copy of this for my Mac Plus, let me know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207754</id>
	<title>Re:How hard can it be?</title>
	<author>m.dillon</author>
	<datestamp>1266600060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yah.  And that's the one overriding advantage to SSDs in the SATA form factor.  They have lots and lots of competition.  The custom solutions... the PCI-e cards and the flash-on-board or daughter-board systems wind up being relegated to the extreme application space, which means they are sold for tons of money because they can't do any volume production and have to compete against the cheaper SATA-based SSDs on the low-end.  These bits of hardware are thus solely targeted to the high-end solution space where a few microseconds actually matters.</p><p>Now with 6GBit (600 MByte/sec) SATA coming out I fully expect the SATA based SSDs to start pushing 400MB+/sec per drive within the next 12 months.  If Intel can push 200MB/sec+ (reading) in their low-end 40G MLC SSD, then we clearly already have the technological capability to push more with 6GBit SATA without having to resort to expensive, custom PCI-e jobs.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yah .
And that 's the one overriding advantage to SSDs in the SATA form factor .
They have lots and lots of competition .
The custom solutions... the PCI-e cards and the flash-on-board or daughter-board systems wind up being relegated to the extreme application space , which means they are sold for tons of money because they ca n't do any volume production and have to compete against the cheaper SATA-based SSDs on the low-end .
These bits of hardware are thus solely targeted to the high-end solution space where a few microseconds actually matters.Now with 6GBit ( 600 MByte/sec ) SATA coming out I fully expect the SATA based SSDs to start pushing 400MB + /sec per drive within the next 12 months .
If Intel can push 200MB/sec + ( reading ) in their low-end 40G MLC SSD , then we clearly already have the technological capability to push more with 6GBit SATA without having to resort to expensive , custom PCI-e jobs.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yah.
And that's the one overriding advantage to SSDs in the SATA form factor.
They have lots and lots of competition.
The custom solutions... the PCI-e cards and the flash-on-board or daughter-board systems wind up being relegated to the extreme application space, which means they are sold for tons of money because they can't do any volume production and have to compete against the cheaper SATA-based SSDs on the low-end.
These bits of hardware are thus solely targeted to the high-end solution space where a few microseconds actually matters.Now with 6GBit (600 MByte/sec) SATA coming out I fully expect the SATA based SSDs to start pushing 400MB+/sec per drive within the next 12 months.
If Intel can push 200MB/sec+ (reading) in their low-end 40G MLC SSD, then we clearly already have the technological capability to push more with 6GBit SATA without having to resort to expensive, custom PCI-e jobs.-Matt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207694</id>
	<title>Re:How hard can it be?</title>
	<author>hlge</author>
	<datestamp>1266599400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to go real fast <a href="http://www.sun.com/storage/disk\_systems/sss/f5100/" title="sun.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sun.com/storage/disk\_systems/sss/f5100/</a> [sun.com] OK, not something that you would use in home setting, but it shows that there is still lot of room for innovation in the SSD space.

But to your point, rather than using traditional SSDs Sun created a "SO-DIM" with flash that allows for higher packing density as well better performance.

Info on the flash modules.
<a href="http://www.sun.com/storage/disk\_systems/sss/flash\_modules/index.xml" title="sun.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sun.com/storage/disk\_systems/sss/flash\_modules/index.xml</a> [sun.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to go real fast http : //www.sun.com/storage/disk \ _systems/sss/f5100/ [ sun.com ] OK , not something that you would use in home setting , but it shows that there is still lot of room for innovation in the SSD space .
But to your point , rather than using traditional SSDs Sun created a " SO-DIM " with flash that allows for higher packing density as well better performance .
Info on the flash modules .
http : //www.sun.com/storage/disk \ _systems/sss/flash \ _modules/index.xml [ sun.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to go real fast http://www.sun.com/storage/disk\_systems/sss/f5100/ [sun.com] OK, not something that you would use in home setting, but it shows that there is still lot of room for innovation in the SSD space.
But to your point, rather than using traditional SSDs Sun created a "SO-DIM" with flash that allows for higher packing density as well better performance.
Info on the flash modules.
http://www.sun.com/storage/disk\_systems/sss/flash\_modules/index.xml [sun.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208174</id>
	<title>Re:How hard can it be?</title>
	<author>blackraven14250</author>
	<datestamp>1266605820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*) This really is stupid: <a href="http://www.auspcmarket.com.au/show\_product\_info.php?input\%5Bproduct\_code\%5D=ABT-OCZ-SSDPCIE-ZDP84256G&amp;input\%5Bcategory\_id\%5D=1830" title="auspcmarket.com.au">256GB OCZ Z-Drive p84 PCI-Express</a> [auspcmarket.com.au] is $2420, but I can get four of these <a href="http://www.auspcmarket.com.au/show\_product\_info.php?input\%5Bproduct\_code\%5D=ABT-OCZ-SSD2-1VTX60G&amp;input\%5Bcategory\_id\%5D=1772" title="auspcmarket.com.au">60GB OCZ Vertex SATA</a> [auspcmarket.com.au] at $308 each for a total of $1232, or about half. Most motherboards have 4 built-in ports with RAID capability, so I don't even need a dedicated controller!</p></div><p>Let me just point out, I bought 2 SSD drives and used my onboard RAID, only to find out that I was limited to 1 PCIe lane due to the onboard controller's design, and thus was running at the speed of a single one of my SSDs instead of 2, realizing no performance gains from RAID0.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* ) This really is stupid : 256GB OCZ Z-Drive p84 PCI-Express [ auspcmarket.com.au ] is $ 2420 , but I can get four of these 60GB OCZ Vertex SATA [ auspcmarket.com.au ] at $ 308 each for a total of $ 1232 , or about half .
Most motherboards have 4 built-in ports with RAID capability , so I do n't even need a dedicated controller ! Let me just point out , I bought 2 SSD drives and used my onboard RAID , only to find out that I was limited to 1 PCIe lane due to the onboard controller 's design , and thus was running at the speed of a single one of my SSDs instead of 2 , realizing no performance gains from RAID0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*) This really is stupid: 256GB OCZ Z-Drive p84 PCI-Express [auspcmarket.com.au] is $2420, but I can get four of these 60GB OCZ Vertex SATA [auspcmarket.com.au] at $308 each for a total of $1232, or about half.
Most motherboards have 4 built-in ports with RAID capability, so I don't even need a dedicated controller!Let me just point out, I bought 2 SSD drives and used my onboard RAID, only to find out that I was limited to 1 PCIe lane due to the onboard controller's design, and thus was running at the speed of a single one of my SSDs instead of 2, realizing no performance gains from RAID0.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207150</id>
	<title>Misleading title</title>
	<author>dnaumov</author>
	<datestamp>1266593880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The new OCZ SSDs, while a welcome addition to the market aren't anywhere near "fastest storage".<br>
Crucial RealSSD C300: <a href="http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3118/crucial\_realssd\_c300\_256gb\_sata\_6gbps\_solid\_state\_disk/index5.html" title="tweaktown.com">http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3118/crucial\_realssd\_c300\_256gb\_sata\_6gbps\_solid\_state\_disk/index5.html</a> [tweaktown.com] <br>
Fusion-IO: <a href="http://storage-news.com/2009/10/29/hothardware-shows-first-benchmarks-for-fusion-io-drive/" title="storage-news.com">http://storage-news.com/2009/10/29/hothardware-shows-first-benchmarks-for-fusion-io-drive/</a> [storage-news.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The new OCZ SSDs , while a welcome addition to the market are n't anywhere near " fastest storage " .
Crucial RealSSD C300 : http : //www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3118/crucial \ _realssd \ _c300 \ _256gb \ _sata \ _6gbps \ _solid \ _state \ _disk/index5.html [ tweaktown.com ] Fusion-IO : http : //storage-news.com/2009/10/29/hothardware-shows-first-benchmarks-for-fusion-io-drive/ [ storage-news.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new OCZ SSDs, while a welcome addition to the market aren't anywhere near "fastest storage".
Crucial RealSSD C300: http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3118/crucial\_realssd\_c300\_256gb\_sata\_6gbps\_solid\_state\_disk/index5.html [tweaktown.com] 
Fusion-IO: http://storage-news.com/2009/10/29/hothardware-shows-first-benchmarks-for-fusion-io-drive/ [storage-news.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206830</id>
	<title>Back int' day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266589860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember t' days when you could create a ramdrive ont amiga that'd survive warm resets, that was a persistent as yer needed, by 'eck</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember t ' days when you could create a ramdrive ont amiga that 'd survive warm resets , that was a persistent as yer needed , by 'eck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember t' days when you could create a ramdrive ont amiga that'd survive warm resets, that was a persistent as yer needed, by 'eck</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208098</id>
	<title>Don't we want raw access + NILFS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266604800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see why manufacturers would want to spend any amount of money for using someone else's controller, when they could just give us raw access to the device and let us use a filesystem such as NILFS on it.</p><p>Do you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why manufacturers would want to spend any amount of money for using someone else 's controller , when they could just give us raw access to the device and let us use a filesystem such as NILFS on it.Do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why manufacturers would want to spend any amount of money for using someone else's controller, when they could just give us raw access to the device and let us use a filesystem such as NILFS on it.Do you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208074</id>
	<title>Re:How hard can it be?</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1266604440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I suspect that most drives we're seeing are too full of compromises to unlock the real potential of flash storage. Manufacturers are sticking to 'safe' markets and form factors. For example, they all seem to target the 2.5" laptop drive market, so all the SSD controllers I've seen so far are all very low power (~1W), which seriously limits their performance. Also, very few drives use PCI-e natively as a bus, most consumer PCI-e SSDs are actually four SATA SSDs attached to a generic SATA RAID card, which is just... sad. It's also telling that it's a factor of two cheaper to just go and buy four SSDs and RAID them using an off-the-shelf RAID controller! (*)</p></div></blockquote><p>You can get SSDs in standard drive form factors, as well as PCIe.</p><p>Hell, Asus had a laptop with 2PCIe SSDs, Acer had one too. The Eee 700, 900, 901 used a miniPCIe SSD. The SSD versins of the Acer Aspire One used a mini PCIe SSD as well.</p><p>These aren't PCIe controllers attached to a SATA SSD, either, but native SSDs that behaved as a mass storage controller. They react as if they were SATA disks to make BIOS boot simple and require no drivers to work.</p><p>FusionIO devices are great, but I don't know why they don't simulate a standard mass storage controller so you can boot from them. Either a standard mass storage controller SATA emulation, or with a BIOS option ROM to allow booting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that most drives we 're seeing are too full of compromises to unlock the real potential of flash storage .
Manufacturers are sticking to 'safe ' markets and form factors .
For example , they all seem to target the 2.5 " laptop drive market , so all the SSD controllers I 've seen so far are all very low power ( ~ 1W ) , which seriously limits their performance .
Also , very few drives use PCI-e natively as a bus , most consumer PCI-e SSDs are actually four SATA SSDs attached to a generic SATA RAID card , which is just... sad. It 's also telling that it 's a factor of two cheaper to just go and buy four SSDs and RAID them using an off-the-shelf RAID controller !
( * ) You can get SSDs in standard drive form factors , as well as PCIe.Hell , Asus had a laptop with 2PCIe SSDs , Acer had one too .
The Eee 700 , 900 , 901 used a miniPCIe SSD .
The SSD versins of the Acer Aspire One used a mini PCIe SSD as well.These are n't PCIe controllers attached to a SATA SSD , either , but native SSDs that behaved as a mass storage controller .
They react as if they were SATA disks to make BIOS boot simple and require no drivers to work.FusionIO devices are great , but I do n't know why they do n't simulate a standard mass storage controller so you can boot from them .
Either a standard mass storage controller SATA emulation , or with a BIOS option ROM to allow booting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that most drives we're seeing are too full of compromises to unlock the real potential of flash storage.
Manufacturers are sticking to 'safe' markets and form factors.
For example, they all seem to target the 2.5" laptop drive market, so all the SSD controllers I've seen so far are all very low power (~1W), which seriously limits their performance.
Also, very few drives use PCI-e natively as a bus, most consumer PCI-e SSDs are actually four SATA SSDs attached to a generic SATA RAID card, which is just... sad. It's also telling that it's a factor of two cheaper to just go and buy four SSDs and RAID them using an off-the-shelf RAID controller!
(*)You can get SSDs in standard drive form factors, as well as PCIe.Hell, Asus had a laptop with 2PCIe SSDs, Acer had one too.
The Eee 700, 900, 901 used a miniPCIe SSD.
The SSD versins of the Acer Aspire One used a mini PCIe SSD as well.These aren't PCIe controllers attached to a SATA SSD, either, but native SSDs that behaved as a mass storage controller.
They react as if they were SATA disks to make BIOS boot simple and require no drivers to work.FusionIO devices are great, but I don't know why they don't simulate a standard mass storage controller so you can boot from them.
Either a standard mass storage controller SATA emulation, or with a BIOS option ROM to allow booting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207672</id>
	<title>OCZ? So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266599160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...does that mean you'll need to replace it 5 times before you get one that works?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...does that mean you 'll need to replace it 5 times before you get one that works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...does that mean you'll need to replace it 5 times before you get one that works?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206798</id>
	<title>oh god...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266589560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I was so eager to test it that I pounded on this drive all night "</p><p>Possible poor choice of words?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I was so eager to test it that I pounded on this drive all night " Possible poor choice of words ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I was so eager to test it that I pounded on this drive all night "Possible poor choice of words?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220</id>
	<title>How hard can it be?</title>
	<author>bertok</author>
	<datestamp>1266594480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm kinda fed up waiting for the SSD manufacturers to get their act together. There's just no reason for drives to be only 10-50x faster than physical drives. It should be trivial to make them many thousands of times faster.</p><p>I suspect that most drives we're seeing are too full of compromises to unlock the real potential of flash storage. Manufacturers are sticking to 'safe' markets and form factors. For example, they all seem to target the 2.5" laptop drive market, so all the SSD controllers I've seen so far are all very low power (~1W), which seriously limits their performance. Also, very few drives use PCI-e natively as a bus, most consumer PCI-e SSDs are actually four SATA SSDs attached to a generic SATA RAID card, which is just... sad. It's also telling that it's a factor of two cheaper to just go and buy four SSDs and RAID them using an off-the-shelf RAID controller! (*)</p><p>Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.fusionio.com/" title="fusionio.com">FusionIO</a> [fusionio.com] makes PCI-e cards that can do 100-200K IOPS at speeds of about 1GB/sec! Sure, they're expensive, but 90\% of that is because they're a very small volume product targeted at the 'enterprise' market, which automatically inflates the price by a '0' or two. Take a look at a <a href="http://www.fusionio.com/load/media-imagesMediakit/gt33y/ioDriveDuo\_Flat\_orig.jpg" title="fusionio.com">photo</a> [fusionio.com] of one of their cards. The controller chip has a <i>heat sink</i>, because it's designed for <i>performance</i>, not power efficiency!</p><p>This reminiscent of the early days of the 3D accelerator market. On one side, there was the high-performing 'enterprise' series of products from Silicon Graphics, at an insane price, and at the low-end of the market there were companies making half-assed cards that actually <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3\_ViRGE#Performance" title="wikipedia.org">decelerated graphics performance</a> [wikipedia.org]. Then NVIDIA happened, and now Silicon Graphics is a <i>has been</i> because they didn't understand that consumers want performance at a sane price point. Today, we still have SSDs that are <i>slower</i> that mechanical drives at some tasks, which just boggles the mind, and on the other hand we have FusionIO, a company with technically great products that decided to try to target the consumer market by releasing a tiny 80GB drive for a jaw-dropping <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fusion-io-80GB-ioXtreme-Pro/dp/B002SDK0XY/ref=sr\_1\_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=electronics&amp;qid=1266633181&amp;sr=1-3" title="amazon.com">$1500</a> [amazon.com]. I mean.. seriously... what?</p><p>Back when I was a young kid first entering university, SGI came to do a sales pitch, targeted at people doing engineering or whatever. They were trying to market their "low-end" workstations with special discount "educational" pricing. At the time, I had a first-generation 3Dfx accelerator in one of the first Athlons, which cost me about $1500 total and could run circles around the SGI machine. Nonetheless, I was curious about the old-school SGI machine, so I asked for a price quote. The sales guy mumbled a lot about how it's "totally worth it", and "actually very cost effective". It took me about five minutes to extract a number. The base model, empty, with no RAM, drive, or 3D accelerator was $40K. The SSD market is exactly at the same point. I'm just waiting for a new ''NVIDIA" or "ATI" to come along, crush the competition with vastly superior products with no stupid compromises, and steal all the engineers from FusionIO and then buy the company for their IP for a bag of beans a couple of years later.</p><p>*) This really is stupid: <a href="http://www.auspcmarket.com.au/show\_product\_info.php?input\%5Bproduct\_code\%5D=ABT-OCZ-SSDPCIE-ZDP84256G&amp;input\%5Bcategory\_id\%5D=1830" title="auspcmarket.com.au">256GB OCZ Z-Drive p84 PCI-Express</a> [auspcmarket.com.au] is $2420, but I can get four of these <a href="http://www.auspcmarket.com.au/show\_product\_info.php?input\%5Bproduct\_code\%5D=ABT-OCZ-SSD2-1VTX60G&amp;input\%5Bcategory\_id\%5D=1772" title="auspcmarket.com.au">60GB OCZ Vertex SATA</a> [auspcmarket.com.au] at $308 each for a total of $1232, or about half. Most motherboards have 4 built-in ports with RAID capability, so I don't even need a dedicated controller!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kinda fed up waiting for the SSD manufacturers to get their act together .
There 's just no reason for drives to be only 10-50x faster than physical drives .
It should be trivial to make them many thousands of times faster.I suspect that most drives we 're seeing are too full of compromises to unlock the real potential of flash storage .
Manufacturers are sticking to 'safe ' markets and form factors .
For example , they all seem to target the 2.5 " laptop drive market , so all the SSD controllers I 've seen so far are all very low power ( ~ 1W ) , which seriously limits their performance .
Also , very few drives use PCI-e natively as a bus , most consumer PCI-e SSDs are actually four SATA SSDs attached to a generic SATA RAID card , which is just... sad. It 's also telling that it 's a factor of two cheaper to just go and buy four SSDs and RAID them using an off-the-shelf RAID controller !
( * ) Meanwhile , FusionIO [ fusionio.com ] makes PCI-e cards that can do 100-200K IOPS at speeds of about 1GB/sec !
Sure , they 're expensive , but 90 \ % of that is because they 're a very small volume product targeted at the 'enterprise ' market , which automatically inflates the price by a '0 ' or two .
Take a look at a photo [ fusionio.com ] of one of their cards .
The controller chip has a heat sink , because it 's designed for performance , not power efficiency ! This reminiscent of the early days of the 3D accelerator market .
On one side , there was the high-performing 'enterprise ' series of products from Silicon Graphics , at an insane price , and at the low-end of the market there were companies making half-assed cards that actually decelerated graphics performance [ wikipedia.org ] .
Then NVIDIA happened , and now Silicon Graphics is a has been because they did n't understand that consumers want performance at a sane price point .
Today , we still have SSDs that are slower that mechanical drives at some tasks , which just boggles the mind , and on the other hand we have FusionIO , a company with technically great products that decided to try to target the consumer market by releasing a tiny 80GB drive for a jaw-dropping $ 1500 [ amazon.com ] .
I mean.. seriously... what ? Back when I was a young kid first entering university , SGI came to do a sales pitch , targeted at people doing engineering or whatever .
They were trying to market their " low-end " workstations with special discount " educational " pricing .
At the time , I had a first-generation 3Dfx accelerator in one of the first Athlons , which cost me about $ 1500 total and could run circles around the SGI machine .
Nonetheless , I was curious about the old-school SGI machine , so I asked for a price quote .
The sales guy mumbled a lot about how it 's " totally worth it " , and " actually very cost effective " .
It took me about five minutes to extract a number .
The base model , empty , with no RAM , drive , or 3D accelerator was $ 40K .
The SSD market is exactly at the same point .
I 'm just waiting for a new ''NVIDIA " or " ATI " to come along , crush the competition with vastly superior products with no stupid compromises , and steal all the engineers from FusionIO and then buy the company for their IP for a bag of beans a couple of years later .
* ) This really is stupid : 256GB OCZ Z-Drive p84 PCI-Express [ auspcmarket.com.au ] is $ 2420 , but I can get four of these 60GB OCZ Vertex SATA [ auspcmarket.com.au ] at $ 308 each for a total of $ 1232 , or about half .
Most motherboards have 4 built-in ports with RAID capability , so I do n't even need a dedicated controller !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kinda fed up waiting for the SSD manufacturers to get their act together.
There's just no reason for drives to be only 10-50x faster than physical drives.
It should be trivial to make them many thousands of times faster.I suspect that most drives we're seeing are too full of compromises to unlock the real potential of flash storage.
Manufacturers are sticking to 'safe' markets and form factors.
For example, they all seem to target the 2.5" laptop drive market, so all the SSD controllers I've seen so far are all very low power (~1W), which seriously limits their performance.
Also, very few drives use PCI-e natively as a bus, most consumer PCI-e SSDs are actually four SATA SSDs attached to a generic SATA RAID card, which is just... sad. It's also telling that it's a factor of two cheaper to just go and buy four SSDs and RAID them using an off-the-shelf RAID controller!
(*)Meanwhile, FusionIO [fusionio.com] makes PCI-e cards that can do 100-200K IOPS at speeds of about 1GB/sec!
Sure, they're expensive, but 90\% of that is because they're a very small volume product targeted at the 'enterprise' market, which automatically inflates the price by a '0' or two.
Take a look at a photo [fusionio.com] of one of their cards.
The controller chip has a heat sink, because it's designed for performance, not power efficiency!This reminiscent of the early days of the 3D accelerator market.
On one side, there was the high-performing 'enterprise' series of products from Silicon Graphics, at an insane price, and at the low-end of the market there were companies making half-assed cards that actually decelerated graphics performance [wikipedia.org].
Then NVIDIA happened, and now Silicon Graphics is a has been because they didn't understand that consumers want performance at a sane price point.
Today, we still have SSDs that are slower that mechanical drives at some tasks, which just boggles the mind, and on the other hand we have FusionIO, a company with technically great products that decided to try to target the consumer market by releasing a tiny 80GB drive for a jaw-dropping $1500 [amazon.com].
I mean.. seriously... what?Back when I was a young kid first entering university, SGI came to do a sales pitch, targeted at people doing engineering or whatever.
They were trying to market their "low-end" workstations with special discount "educational" pricing.
At the time, I had a first-generation 3Dfx accelerator in one of the first Athlons, which cost me about $1500 total and could run circles around the SGI machine.
Nonetheless, I was curious about the old-school SGI machine, so I asked for a price quote.
The sales guy mumbled a lot about how it's "totally worth it", and "actually very cost effective".
It took me about five minutes to extract a number.
The base model, empty, with no RAM, drive, or 3D accelerator was $40K.
The SSD market is exactly at the same point.
I'm just waiting for a new ''NVIDIA" or "ATI" to come along, crush the competition with vastly superior products with no stupid compromises, and steal all the engineers from FusionIO and then buy the company for their IP for a bag of beans a couple of years later.
*) This really is stupid: 256GB OCZ Z-Drive p84 PCI-Express [auspcmarket.com.au] is $2420, but I can get four of these 60GB OCZ Vertex SATA [auspcmarket.com.au] at $308 each for a total of $1232, or about half.
Most motherboards have 4 built-in ports with RAID capability, so I don't even need a dedicated controller!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31209468</id>
	<title>Limited Edition = artificial scarcity</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266673680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be illegal to label products like this. The only thing limited, is the mental capacity of those who buy it because of this label.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be illegal to label products like this .
The only thing limited , is the mental capacity of those who buy it because of this label .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be illegal to label products like this.
The only thing limited, is the mental capacity of those who buy it because of this label.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206852</id>
	<title>Dial M</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266590160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is besting the Intel X25-M "news"?  The M stands for Mainstream.  It's not their fastest drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is besting the Intel X25-M " news " ?
The M stands for Mainstream .
It 's not their fastest drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is besting the Intel X25-M "news"?
The M stands for Mainstream.
It's not their fastest drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207144</id>
	<title>All things are a "Limited Edition"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266593880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always crack up when I see this in advertising. They will make them until they run out of materials to make them (hence they are limited to the silicon that exists on earth).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always crack up when I see this in advertising .
They will make them until they run out of materials to make them ( hence they are limited to the silicon that exists on earth ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always crack up when I see this in advertising.
They will make them until they run out of materials to make them (hence they are limited to the silicon that exists on earth).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31209542</id>
	<title>Re:Can you hack one in?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266674760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you are working on your PC and the power goes; the drive powers off. Without super caps to provide the extra few seconds of power to the drive the tables are not moved from RAM to flash and the table is lost. Or does this drive not store the tables in RAM but on flash instead?<br>
&nbsp; <br>Excuse my ignorance but I work with enterprise SSDs and not consumer SSDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you are working on your PC and the power goes ; the drive powers off .
Without super caps to provide the extra few seconds of power to the drive the tables are not moved from RAM to flash and the table is lost .
Or does this drive not store the tables in RAM but on flash instead ?
  Excuse my ignorance but I work with enterprise SSDs and not consumer SSDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you are working on your PC and the power goes; the drive powers off.
Without super caps to provide the extra few seconds of power to the drive the tables are not moved from RAM to flash and the table is lost.
Or does this drive not store the tables in RAM but on flash instead?
  Excuse my ignorance but I work with enterprise SSDs and not consumer SSDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206772</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31209344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31210080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_0054218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31209542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31209468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31209344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31210080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31209542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31206946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31207772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31208074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_0054218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_0054218.31216464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
